Shouting out what nobody is talking about!

Oh hum… Ebola fighers? There were plenty of opportunities for a hero to come forward fighting Ebola, but leadership looked inept and doctors and nurses came back to the states and thumbed their noses at us. There were some heroes that saved the first infected doctor, Kent Brantly, and the nurse, Nancy Writebol, but that treatment appeared to be special and not shared with those in Africa. It would be a little unfair to highlight the doctors behind ZMAPP in absence of that treatment for all Africans. Dr. Brantly did however share his plasma with others and that could highlight him specifically if a Person of the Year was related to fighting Ebola.

When I look back on the year, I fail to see someone come forward has a hero, leader, or influential. The fights against Ebola, ISIS, debt, immigration and political and racial discord are unfinished or getting worse. When looking at the other side of the coin, meaning evil, people like Putin and ISIS bubble to the top but Putin is still driving to goals not reached and ISIS is just a bunch of localized thugs.

Michael Brown was a gentle giant until we saw him rob and threaten a store owner.

The protesters are vocal and widespread but nothing will change from their efforts primarily because they are basing their protests on lies instead of truths. The truths are not part of the debate.

A big political wave occurred, but there is no one to credit. The winning side strategy was to do nothing wrong and lacked leadership and the losing side was just a bunch of inept liars. No one stood out; not even the voters.

A member of SEAL Team 6 was highlighted as the Osama shooter, but he was different from the original reported shooter. What is truth?

NFL heroes became domestic abusers.

Can we look at Satan as the person of the year since there has been so many evil problems to combat? He seems to be the best choice for the person of the year but as his evil grows there are people stepping up to combat it. Since ISIS is a large evil that is associating itself to Islam, I don’t want to bring Satan into the mix to imply some transitive property between Islam and Satan. In the end we just have more chaos, discord and violence in an never changing status quo.

To me the Person of the Year is “No One”. No one took the reins in vacuums of missing leadership. No one brought solutions to massive debt. No one brought faith and confidence to the US response to Ebola. No one handled the domestic violence crisis in the NFL with decisiveness. No one took a stance to destroy ISIS and return freedom to those affected. No one defused the conflict in Ukraine. No one brought honesty and civility to the racial discord in the United States. No one helped turn the tide of growing poverty in deteriorating cities.

When heroes came about we would knock them down with each character flaw. Media would attack heroes with political ideologies or righteous principles inconsistent with their world view. Political correctness would push us to normalize people into one nondescript collective over individualism. People of stature were shunned in favor of unruly mobs. People in leadership would hide from the problems and assign blame.

I was looking for this video the other day and I thought I had linked to it from my blog but didn’t. This video demonstrates why it is so difficult having a conversation with a liberal.

This speaker was a liberal and used to work for Bill Maher. He describes why liberals or more accurate Modern Liberals are always wrong. He also hints to why some “republicans”, libertarians and some conservatives have a lot in common with classic liberals. After watching this video, you should pause and realize this speech was given more than 7 years ago and long before anyone knew of Barack Obama (except for a few of us that watch him give a speech at the Democrat convention). The content of this speech keeps ringing true over the years.

I just have to remember the phrase:

Modern Liberal’s thinking leads him to side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.

I have noticed that Bill O’Reily appears to be supporting a strike against Syria. I believe it is fine to hold that opinion, but I think his no spin zone on the topic is getting out of control.

Today, he had Kristen Powers, Democrat strategist or as I say Democrat cheerleader, and Kate Obenshain, Republic Strategist. The two guests were pretty close to agreement on not taking action. They provided different reasons but had some common ground in not acting.

I found myself agreeing with both Powers and Obenshain also. My key points are the rebel side is mostly Islamic militants (moderate or jihadists; it doesn’t matter if a strict Islamic state is created) and it is too late to get a good result in Syria. If we are to get involved, we would need to attack both sides of the civil war. Not a good position to be in because that will turn every side against us. Worse case scenario is the removal of Assad may lead to Al Qaeda gaining the chemical weapons.

A legal response to violations of the chemical weapon treaty would be to capture or kill Assad for war crimes, but that enables Islamic militants to gain control. Thus, the only action the US can justify unilaterally is the neutralizing of the chemical weapons stockpile. Of course, that may lead to casualties from actions destroying the stock piles. Sarin gas collateral damage may make us no different than Assad.

Without the means for a proper succession and control in Syria, we need to wait until the parameters of the situation change again to be more dire to America or more easy to transition Syria to peaceful government and over-site of chemical weapons.

In the meantime, President Obama should be rallying for International Support. Negotiating with the UN and thus, Russia and China on how to handle the chemical weapons treaty violation. Unfortunately, I don’t think the American UN ambassador, Samatha Powers, will have much respect in the UN negotiations based on her radical anti-American past. During this process, Obama must be looking for opportunities to neutralize the chemical weapons or attack those that may be in process of using them. This can be considered defense against imminent danger.

Back to O’Reily, he accused Kate Obenshain of claiming McCain is “deceiving” Americans and mocked her if she believed she knew more than John McCain. I don’t think I need to know more than McCain to see his deciet. O’Reily should not be so quick to mock.

McCain has recently said things like “Allahu Akbar” is the same as saying “thank God”. Those are not the same; McCain is trying to portray aggressive phrase as passive. Allahu Akbar is typically understood to be “God is Greatest” and shouted at the beginning of an action as a rallying cry. It is not typically a phrase of praise after a positive event. “Thank God.” It can be used in thanks, but that is not how it is used in the context McCain was speaking. He was trying to deceive.

In addition McCain also has made claims that ALL the people that took and uploaded the videos of the chemical attacks died. I think he embellishes. More directly he says he has met with the rebels and they are moderate. He also claimed the Egyptian rebels were sectarian before the Muslim Brotherhood took over.

The Egyptian revolution of sectarian rebels led to an Islamic state. Moderate or not, any Islamic rebel group will lead to Islamic state. The Muslim Brotherhood is part of the Syrian rebellion. The Muslim Brotherhood was not even part of the revolution in Egypt, but we saw them take control and kill Christians. McCain is delusional if he wants us to believe this rebellion will end in moderates and democracy. He quickly forgets his past failures in predicting these outcomes.

O’Reily sure is confused if he thinks McCain has this right. McCain has been wrong on everything since the start of the Arab spring.

Lastly, O’Reily really needs to stop making Republican opposition in Syria about Obama and politics. We would be against this if it was George Bush. We know there are “terrorists” on both sides. Picking sides would be worse than what happened when we armed Osama Bid Laden to fight the Russians.

This is actually a serious policy debate with less politics than usual. This is good to have this debate. O’Reilly should stick to facts instead of injecting or elevating political commentary to dilute the substance of the policy debate. Yes, there is some political pandering points being made but they are not the dominant points and we need to keep those in the shadows. However, O’Reily is elevating those irrelevant points to deflect from the significant counter points to Syria involvement.

George Bush worked for a long time to gather support for action. Obama should do the same before making threats or taking action. We are dealing with the results of a man-child President too busy playing golf to do the hard day to day work of building coalitions and leading the country on a daily basis.

I wish I wrote about this earlier because this would be an I told you so moment… So lets talk about the people that did speak out.

The other day there was a debate on the Sean Hannity radio show that really pointed out the depth of our problems with Egypt. We supported Egypt during the Hosni Mubarak period, supported the military during the first revolution (coup), supported the Muslim Brotherhood after elections and then now we may stop support after the last coup that ousted the Islamic extremists from the Egyptian political process. Doesn’t that have bad optics? Did we intentionally support an Islamic takeover of Egypt and quit after it failed?

I don’t think Obama intended to support an Islamic takeover, even though many of us thought for years he was directing foreign policy in this direction. The whole progression of events really resembled incompetence to me.

Returning to the beginning of the Arab spring, there were many people that wanted aid to stop and have conditions on results before aid returns. However, the political elite in both parties like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, McCain, and Graham thought it best if we give aid first and hope for results later. Don’t we look stupid now.

We need an overall change in policy to get better results. Conditions and mentoring should come first. Can we not tell how our fundamental philosophy of government supports different types of religions and social governance? Unfortunately, we cannot because we keep trashing our own history, founding, and Constitution. Remember the US Supreme Court Judge that said they wouldn’t start with our Constitution because it is outdated?

What I think is important is the philosophy of limited government, power of the people (of which we are losing in the United States), and belief in the individual.

In America, the belief in the individual was based on Judeo-Christian values. It meant the government was to be limited and the people were to use their values to govern themselves and their local communities. Muslims could do the same if they followed the same government structure and faith in their people. However, their political leaders like to take control and force their values. Thus, crushing the human spirit and prosperity that can follow.

America should return to its values and start to regain its moral high ground. Then, we can take a new direction in foreign policy by focusing on helping nations apply these values to new government structures. Can we not make it appealing for nations like Egypt to want to join organizations like NATO? Turkey did, but as the world is progressing now, Turkey may leave NATO and potentially spark the creation of a new Caliphate.

We have a lot of work to return to our values and it starts by downsizing our government and up-sizing our citizenship. Isn’t that what we would like to see in the fragile potential terrorist nations in turmoil?

Congressman Peter King has been a staunch supporter of the NSA information gathering and recently slams Rand Paul for challenging the NSA tactics.

Peter King has stated:

“Scandal is when a government agency is using information to hurt people”

Can I mention General Petraeus? Where did all the emails come from that exposed him and dragged innocent parties General Allen and Jill Kelley into the scandal. General Allen pulled his nomination to become commander of NATO forces even after clearing his name.

If you remember, the government leaked information indicating that he had 30,000 flirtatious emails with Jill Kelley. We find out later it was only about 100 and General Allen’s wife was included on many of the emails. Jill’s account was also shared with her husband.

A government agency didn’t hurt anyone? Get real.

I would like Mr. King to prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that the NSA was not involved. I know the story is the FBI got a warrant to investigate and all this came out… what really triggered this? I am sure there is some paper work that a government agency created to make the warrant appear above board, but I doubt the NSA wasn’t involved.

I challenge King to prove it. Show me the emails are not in the NSA system. Show me that no NSA personal or program accessed the emails. Show me that General Allen and Kill Kelley had probable cause to be investigated and have their privacy violated. Prove to me that government officials didn’t violate citizens privacy when leaking the information to the media.

King had stated that the NSA works because it self reported the violations it made. King says the reported 28 violations juxtaposed against billions of phone calls indicates the system works. Is that statement sufficient to believe? I seem to remember we were told that only a couple of Cincinnati IRS officials targeted conservative groups. Yeah, that was believable also.

There is definitely a problem with government power and it should not be brushed off lightly Mr. King.

I was reading a story about an ex-marine giving a speech against a the New Hampshire city of Concord. What caught my attention was the background information in the story.

The city council is requesting $258,000 grant from the federal government to purchase a military truck, called a bearcat:

This military style vehicle was requested to fight the people below:

That is right. The city of Concord listed this organization has domestic terrorists on the application to qualify for the credit to buy the military style truck.

They call themselves the Free State Project which appears to be an organization that is recruiting people of like mind to move to a state they chose to live with the intention of building a better community. They claim they are not political, but I would think they intend to shift the demographics of a community or in this case a state to change the political power (http://freestateproject.org/about).

I don’t know if they are crazy or not. I don’t pretend to endorse or to criticize, but it is clear to me a city doesn’t need to militarize to protect themselves against these people.

Governments are getting out of control on militarization and they are citing peaceful citizen groups as the reason to militarize. This attitude against the people that are not complicit in big government control is dangerous and continues to show our city, state and federal governments are continuing to make the electorate their enemy.

Please pay attention. I agree with the sign: “More Mayberry, Less Fallujah.” This is such a waste of resources to empower Napoleon like public servants.

As Benghazi news has taken a back seat lately, I thought I would like to highlight some new information that came out recently that seems to continue to support or align with my conspiracy theory. If you haven’t read the theory, please read it now as it includes facts of events followed by my supposition (http://www.politicallunacy.net/?p=733).

During testimony, we learned that diplomatic forces were able to get to from Tripoli to Benghazi during the attack before the last two Americans where killed. However, military forces present in Tripoli at the same airport at the time the diplomats were boarding the plane were told not to go. The diplomats made there own call to go, but the military had to follow orders to stay behind.

Military assets could have made it in time if the commander in chief gave the order and they would have been there before the battle ended.

Testimony also emphasized that the terrorists had setup check points which coincides with the original Fox report I quoted that described the car’s tires being shot out on the trip from consulate to annex. Again, the terrorists wanted the Ambassador alive.

We learned that the Ambassador was taken to a hospital controlled by the attacking terrorists. I believe this was their final attempt to get the Ambassador resuscitated to have a successful kidnapping. After that failure, they seemed to have gone to Plan B and attacked the annex.

We also have insight on a conversation from Hillary and Obama that occurred shortly before the final mortar attack in which Obama instructed Hillary to blame the video. This is interesting because there is no testimony about the video before this time related to Benghazi. It is also important to note that Obama was not speaking with State department, CIA or military before this conversation with Hillary. It’s like he dreamed it up out of thin air while sitting alone in the residence.

I believe the absence of Obama from the operations was to keep him from being in the position to send or not send troops. He didn’t want to be seen has gun shy to people in the operation room that would plea for him to respond. His absence makes it easier to not respond. He just waited for the time appropriate to blame the video and start the cover up.

I also found interesting, the one thing Hilary got right in disclosures the night of the attack was information about the Ambassador being taken to the hospital by Libyans. The hospital run and protected by the terrorists. She got inaccurate or cloudy or unclear intel from the CIA and State assets, but good intel from terrorists. Go figure.

As if this isn’t enough, we discovered 3 months ago Al-Qaeda posted on a website that they indeed try to kidnap the Ambassador. They made additional claims to have given the Ambassador a lethal injection as part of a Plan B. I would think their lethal injection claim is bloviating because they bungled the kidnapping by accidentally killing him.

Again, I stand by facts in saying it was a bungled kidnapping, and I hypothesize the President knew it and condoned it. It was the cover to release imprisoned terrorists in exchange for an ambassador as claimed by Al-Qaeda.

I should have posted this earlier, so I hope it isn’t too late to get some attention on the character of Mitt Romney. The links below are to interviews of people that have a story about Mitt Romney. These interviews demonstrate the character of the man way behind the quick hitting attacks propagated by mainstream media.

When you watch these, try to think of anyone describing Barack Obama doing things like this.

I never intended this blog to propagate spin, conspiracy theories, or other irrelevant distractions, but three days ago on Friday I pieced together a theory about the Benghazi attack I just had to write down.

I will provide information in two parts. First, the information that appears to be facts about the event and my logical conclusion from those facts. In part two, I will present my conspiracy theory on the motives and the players involved. Please read the following with that understanding. I think you will agree with my conclusion on part one, but will part two raise enough concern to demand more answers.

Part One: The Events of the Attack

Last Thursday night Fox News provided a very in-depth 3D video animation of the events and timeline for the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequently, the CIA Annex in Benghazi.

I had questions about the attack from the very beginning. Why did it take so long if it was an assassination attempt? Why were there so few casualties? Why did the enemy appear to have no casualties? Why is the protest in Egypt related to Libya?

At last, the Fox News video clarified the nature of the attack sufficiently for me to understand it and then begin to speculate the answers to my remaining questions.

As demonstrated in the video, the attack started about 30 minutes to an hour after a meeting between Turkey officials and the ambassador. The attack started from the front of the compound and involved assault rifles and RPG’s.

The attackers then used diesel fuel to start igniting a front building on fire. After a while the occupants including the ambassador had to make a break to a building further back to avoid the flames and fumes.

The attackers then set the next building on fire. The occupants were somewhat trapped with little exit until one of the CIA agents found a window to exit. He got some people out but didn’t find the ambassador after a few attempts of exiting an re-entering the building.

Eventually, these people made it to a SUV and made a break from the compound. It is important to note that the CIA agents had came to consulate after the attack started against orders to stay at the CIA Annex.

The animated video showed the path the Americans took in the SUV from the consulate to the CIA Annex The vehicle traveled a couple of blocks east and then turned south for about a 1/2 mile to the CIA annex. As they drove south, the SUV encountered grenades and AK-47 fire. An apparent ambush. Fox News got my attention when they said the vehicle had its tires shot out but continued to the CIA Annex on the rims. I observed there are still no reports of casualties in vehicle after grenades and assault rifles attacked it.

The Americans then held up at the CIA Annex until they came under serious attack from mortars, AK-47s and more RPGs. There was an hour of quiet before the final surge by the attackers. Eventually, after about 4 hours at the CIA Annex and 2 hours initially at the consulate they fell to the attack.

Finally, we learned they made many requests for help that were denied. The CIA agents actually had laser marked the mortar team for air support to take out, but the air support never came.

My conclusion from the evidence is that this was a kidnapping attempt. The key fact to me was the SUV was ambushed on an obvious route to the CIA Annex and no one was injured or killed at that point. It appears the attackers focused on the tires and probably used grenades to scare the vehicle or create obstacles to cause it to stop. My logical conclusion was they wanted to the car to stop so they can kidnap the occupants. Similarly, I believe the fire used on the consulate was to get the occupants to exit the building and surrender.

In the end, this was a failed kidnapping. After regrouping for an hour the attackers decided to cut their loses over the failure and make a final surge to kill the Americans.

Part Two: The Conspiracy Theory

The conspiracy theory is really just a collection of other facts about actions taken by various players that are missing motive or justification. These actions may include information disseminated during an event or in the period after the event to shape the interpretation.

The key issues here are why did the requests for help get denied? CIA agents asked to leave the CIA Annex to help and were told to stay. They eventually ignored the order and went anyway.

Why were forces in the Mediterranean Sea on aircraft carriers told to stand down? Why was Delta Force in Italy not deployed? These forces could have been there in an hour.

Why did the US not send an AC-130 to provide air support capable of attacking targets laser tagged by the CIA agents on the ground. The CIA agents actually radioed “where is the f*** is the Spectre”. Which is the name of the AC-130. They believed it was capable of assisting them.

Though the above assets were not deployed, the White House did deploy drones to observe the events.

The key to my theory is that the White House knew it was a kidnapping attempt and they did not want guns in the hands of the Americans that may lead to casualties. Did they hope this would be an easy grab for the attackers and no one would get harmed? Remember, they only deployed assets that can observe.

It is also disturbing that potential jihadists were actually hired to protect the ambassador. Were they involved? Was their involvement key in the expectation the grab of the ambassador would go with little harm. Early reports of the events seemed to indicate the attackers had help from the protection force. For the record, the security force was called the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade”. A little suspicious to have a group with Martyrs in the name securing American assets.

Why would the White House be content with the ambassador being kidnapped? How would they have known?

In the last couple of years many members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic organization have been visiting the White House (see: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3777/a-red-carpet-for-radicals-at-the-white-house). Furthermore, Barack Obama invited Muslim Brotherhood member and new President of Egypt, Mohammad Morsi to the White House back in July. I am pretty sure there were talks between the White House and Egypt many times on logistics before the actual visit to the White House. After the Benghazi attack, the planned meeting was canceled due to political concerns. Morsi did come to New York for the UN assembly in September.

Egypt is key to my conspiracy theory because they have made a clear goal to win the release of the mastermind behind the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka The Blind Sheikh). In the last several months, the media has been questioning the White House about leaks that they intended to release the Blind Sheikh. So far the White House has denied it while sources have said it was a consideration to appease the new Egypt and win favor.

Is this sufficient to declare a conspiracy? Maybe not, but there is more…

Not too long ago Leon Panetta made the statement, they didn’t act because information was not clear. The fog of war as it is known. What is interesting about the “fog of war” scenario is that there was fog provided by the US and Egyptian governments. Coincidence? The cover story propagated by US and Egyptian governments was that a movie incited violence against the US Embassy in Cairo. This violence was used to describe the activities in Benghazi for weeks until we learned it was quite clear an unrelated planned attack occurred.

Next, we learned how much the White House may have known during the attack and actually watched the events unfold for hours. They must have known the movie was not the cause but they used it anyway.

Why did the White House stick to the cover story? I come to the conclusion it was planned to distract from the kidnapping and provide cover for any passive response shown by the White House.

To illustrate why these events may have unfolded into a hard to believe conspiracy theory is to remember the scene between Barack Obama and the ambassador to Russia. ”Tell Vladimir I will have more leeway after the election.”

It is so easy to extend this scenario to a similar hypothetical conversation that goes like “tell Morsi I will have some more leeway after the election or if I have to trade the Blind Sheikh for someone like an ambassador”. Clearly this hypothetical statement is pure conjecture, but couldn’t some similar type of message been conveyed in many conversations between the White House and Egypt? Even if the conversation didn’t suggest a kidnapping, could terrorists extrapolate that a kidnapping may put more pressure on Obama or give him more leverage to make a deal?

One should take in consideration the timing of these events. These events could have led to an October surprise of getting the ambassador returned and a November surprise of the release of the Blind Sheikh. It also was important for Egypt to get the deal done before Obama may lose an election and the power to make a deal.

To drive home the point, I recently saw the leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri, request jihadists everywhere kidnap westerners (see: Al Qaeda’s Zawahiri calls for kidnap of Westerners). The goal of Zawahiri is get barginning chips for gaining the release of the Blind Sheikh. The timing of this request after the failed kidnap attempt suggests Zawahiri may have been aware of the plot. When the plot failed, he initiated a desperate attempt to get leverage on Obama before he loses office.

I hope this theory leads to more questions being answered and shows how important an investigation is needed.

The other day I was getting take out for dinner and my long time friend and owner of the business made some under-the-breath remarks about Obama as he appeared to be going through some paper work. While most of us can share the desire to blame Obama for stranglehold on entrepreneurship, the interesting comment came from the girl working the register taking my money. She said, “don’t mess with my Obama, he is going to take care of my education.”

I bit my tongue to keep from challenging her. I didn’t really want to engage a political topic with an employee of a friend, but I was just amazed to think this person believes Obama is helping her. Let alone, no respect for the person paying her and funding her education.

Does Obama have a rep for helping students? Yes. Why? He as taken the loan making business from the banks and gave it to the government. He as increased funding in various school programs from pre-school to graduate school including college loan funding, grants, and scholarships. Is he special? No. Democrats and Republicans go along with increasing funding to education for votes. However, the funding of education is a lot more of a Democrat issue and a desire from progressives to provide free education for everyone.

Why do we care about Obama? Obama totally advocates this philosophy of flooding education systems with money. He has doubled down on the same ideas to fund more school programs, protect unions and incompetent teachers (last in first out philosophies), fund pensions over student needs and help students get more money for college through either loans, scholarships, and grants. His policy going forward is going to push this even farther for many reasons. Concern about bankrupting this country is not on his radar.

Now, tie this scene that played out in front of me with the recent deluge of sound bites on conservative TV and radio about the people excited about Obama phones and Obama money. There is a large and growing population of people that are excited about the freebies and will continue to vote for dangerous policies that actually do not work and make it harder to correct these failed systems in the future.

From all the spending I mentioned earlier, I would like to spend some time on college loans, grants, scholarships. The other issues are just spending issues and do not change the dynamics of education or translate into improvement of student capabilities and skills. Those other issues just spend more money the government doesn’t have to no avail because the students do not get a better education from that effort. You can look at the downfall of US students compared against other nations.

Focusing on college education which is a primary issue of OWS and my restaurant hostess. I really want to know what they think they are getting. From OWS, they want more money to cover their education so they don’t have to pay. I am pretty sure the hostess was thinking the same way because she appeared to be post-high school in age.

The flaw I am seeing, which is not my own, is government inflating the market and making education more expensive. This gets back to fundamental economics, and recently, I recall Newt Gingrich talking about this phenomena.

When government subsidizes or contributes to the market, the market grows to consume the increased money supply. Government subsidies never just cover the difference between what a student can pay and the cost of education because in the end the benefit just inflates the cost.

I remember applying to college almost 30 years ago. I sent applications to the University of Illinois, Northwestern University and some others. I knew the price difference between U of I and NU was quite large and expected to go to U of I for cost reasons. At the time, NU was 3-4 times more expensive than the U of I. After being accepted to both schools, I was surprised when I received my financial aid statements and determined the cost to me was going to be the same. How can that be? Government programs calculate need and pay the difference or provide programs that basically assist with the difference between the students ability to pay and the cost. It doesn’t have any influence on helping the student make economical decisions and thus inflates the market with more dollars available to colleges.

What did you expect to happen? Universities had no need to compete. They can charge what they want and get paid.

When businesses don’t have to compete, businesses can raise the prices without impact. However, when capitalism is involved, the demand would shrink and provide a counter pressure on the higher prices. Eventually, the market will return lower prices if consumers cannot pay or consumers will see the value in the product pay the higher prices.

When government subsidizes the increased costs, there is no downward pressure on prices and actually government begins to influence a rise in cost. Add to this, the federal government can keep borrowing more money and pay ever higher costs. General consumers have a limit on borrowing and can apply a counter pressure on prices. Thus, the governments endless supply of money to colleges and universities results in a never ending inflation of tuition cost.

Again, the lack of free market and government involvement acts against our desires for an affordable education system. As we keep funding education and make more money available for loans, we are making the situation worse.

Getting back to my hostess, while she thinks she is getting help for education, the cost of her children’s education is going to be even more astounding.

What do we do? Realize that this is another pain we need to go through to undo too many years of government influence. We need to realize that this money supply needs to be reversed. I know people are afraid of being on their own, but this is necessary. We should also recognize that college is not a fundamental requirement. College is important for many good jobs, but there are people getting college degrees or dropping out and get non-college degree jobs. The money spent was a waste.

We need to realize there are other alternatives like trade schools. There are states like North and South Dakota that have a shortage of welders and manufacturing workers. We need to realize that there are opportunities without this government influence. Instead of capitulating to people that want government assistance, we should help them find opportunity and give them encouragement that they can overcome.

If you want to get angry about college costs, look up the endowments of college institutions. They are in the billions and even for state funded schools. These colleges are just getting richer and continue to raise tuition. This further confirms the inflation in tuition is not the result of costs of doing business as a college, but demonstrates the unyielding consumption of available dollars by the colleges and universities. This should make you angry and well as give you comfort in realizing the colleges can adjust to lower government subsidies.

In the end, we need to replace Obama and continue to work to make smaller and smaller governments. If the Republicans are going to run on a small government platform and get elected, we need to support them when they follow through. So many times we run to the other side when when republicans actually to fix the problem. Why would Republicans continue with small government platform when the people will abandon them and the single mention of a cut in some program.

Vote Republican. Vote for Small Government. And vote in Primaries, because you have no choice in general election other than Republican. Hopefully, you realize that Obama is good for education in the long run. He is not.